Summations Only

Thank you for laying that out, it's very helpful for visualizing what the model is all about. The lateral extensions are where the model is seen to be consistent, not the vertical stack.I think you may have inadvertently included the Hermit Shale in your revised version of the Coconino Sandstone, however.

The problem I always have with the idea that the Coconino was deposited aerially is that it's so flat and straight on the bottom and the top. I have two pictures of it on my computer that I can't get to post here, which drives me crazy, but they show the extremely sharp tight contact lines, one of them between the Coconino and the Toroweap above, which I find extremely hard to explain if the Coconino is supposed to have been actual dunes before the deposition of the layer on top of it; and the other shows the similarly straight tight contact line between the Coconino and the Hermit beneath it. If "eolian sands innundated the swampy lowland" to deposit the Coconino on top of the Hermit shale, and formed anything that looks like the Namib desert on top of a "swampy lowland," how could there have been such a neat straight flat contact? That is what we expect to see from water deposition such as this model of rising and falling seas illustrates.I know the Coconino has a crossbedding at an angle of repose that suggests it has to have been formed aerially, but this seems to me to be more than contradicted by its extreme flatness.This link ought to go to a picture of the
Coconino sandstone that shows its straightness and flatness.Here, This link ought to go to a collection of pitures of the Coconino, one of which shows it submerged in water and the tight contact between it and the Toroweap above.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I just want to put here a link to the post that Moose just nominated for a Post of the Month, by roxrkool, which is certainly a very thorough and interesting post that could maybe be included in the discussion here in some way. She posted that diagram there that we are talking about. At the time it was too much for me to think about, too technical and detailed in the context, but now I'm beginning to get it so this could be a good reference to keep on the table.Just have to comment here that the comparison she shows between the extent of the sandstone in the geologic column and the sand dunes in Africa assumes that such dunes could become strata like the Coconino sandstone, which I don't find at all likely, which is pretty much what I'm saying in the post above this one too.On that other thread I was objecting to the idea of a gigantic rock pancake's representing a Time Period, and there are certainly more gigantic ones than the Navajo Sandstone, such as the Redwall Limestone that traverses the whole continent. In any case, my objection now is to the idea that a huge area of sand dunes could ever become a gigantic rock pancake.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Seems to me that to turn sand dunes into a flat rock, and it IS flat and straight to the naked eye, couldn't happen by new sediments covering them over -- they would simply fall over the dunes into the valleys. Even wet sediment would do that although it might have some flattening effect, just not the VERY flattening effect that had to happen to produce the straight contact lines that are visible to the naked eye. Of course if you submerge the dunes they might flatten out some too, but then you wouldn't have that angle of repose that determines aerial deposition any more -- OR the actual flatness that exists. And you need pressure from above. You need a flattening of the sand and pressure from above. If the sand deposited in swamps how is any resultant sandstone going to be flat on the bottom? If another sediment deposits on the dry sand how is it going to be flat on the top? Seems pretty straightforward to me, but of course you're the Geologist and you just know it had to happen the way you say it happened whether it makes sense or not.I can find the video if necessary, creationist video, that says the Redwall extends across the continent and even into the UK.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The crossbedding produces straight lines too, though not necessarily horizontal ones, but I'm talking about the HORIZONTAL surface of the rock that can supposedly form from sand dunes, that very flat straight surface, both top and bottom, clearly seen in pictures of the Coconino, which has nothing to do with the crossbedding but with formation of the sand into a layer that becomes sandstone. Show me how that forms, in such a way as to be just as flat and horizontal as any of the layers that are considered to have been formed inater.

I have NO idea what you are talking about. I've been told repeatedly that the Coconino sandstone exhibits an angle of repose that proves it formed on dry land. Period.

No, I was giving the possible scenario of DRY deposition on top of the sand first and THEN wet deposition, neither of which would flatten the dunes down to that straight-edge flatness we see at the top and bottom of the Coconino, dry deposition not at all, and wet depends on how wet.Of course if the SEA TRANSGRESSES OVER THE DUNES then there will be that washing into the valleys and there will also be the saturation of the dunes which would lose that angle of repose that shows they were formed AERIALLY. So which is it, they were formed aerially or soaked in sea water? The angle of repose is different according to whether the sand was dry or wet. The only way you could get that straight tight contact between the Coconino and the formations both above and below it is if it had been actually DEPOSITED BY WATER as one layer in a series, not just flattened by transgressing sea water. Besides the problem of losing your aerial angle of repose, it would never be flattened to that degree of perfection seen in the photos (which of course is absurdly denied, Emperor's new clothes and all that, just open your eyes but oh well...). And besides you are forgetting that edge said the sand dunes were formed over a swampy lowland which is a fairly dippy lumpy foundation, yet there is just as tight and straight a contact line between that lithified lowland and the lithified sand as between the lithified sand and the lithified sediments of whatever the Toroweap is composed of above. Such a random process couldn't possibly form the very straight tight contact lines we see in the photos of the Coconino. You guys are just going out of your way to confuse something that is really very simple.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The pictures are close enough to see that the contact lines are very straight and tight. JUST LOOK.And I don't know if you are saying the sand was not saturated or even if it was saturated the grains would maintain the same angle of repose. But they would not according to everything I've read. If you stack them in water they have an angle of repose for being stacked in water that is different from being stacked dry. And if you are saying the sand was not saturated by a rise in the sea level that's impossible.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

All I know is that Coragyps for one and various sources I've read insist that the angle of repose depends on the latest condition of the sand, not what RAZD said, that it is retained from its original formation. I asked what about sand dunes being transported in water and was told that they would have the angle of repose that occurs in water. That is supposed to be evidence against the Flood.Now you can all decide which is the truth, I couldn't care less.And by the way Coragyps did send me a kit to judge this for myself but it lacks a protractor and I have a problem with the space to set it up anyway (don't ask) but if I ever get to it maybe it will answer these questions.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Just so you know, I did find some protractors in a cache of art stuff I inherited from my cartoonist uncle. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The source is scripture. Scripture doesn't treat the Flood as miraculous, and its effects, such as the strata and the fossils, are completely natural events. God is behind everything natural that happens anyway, it's only those things that are shown in scripture to clearly contradict the laws of nature that are to be regarded as miraculous. God of course caused the animals to come to Noah and scripture says clearly that God closed the ark behind them. Otherwise the rain and the Flood itself and its physical consequences are treated as natural events.

Your scripture quotes miss the point I made. What I said was that God is behind ALL natural events. It is in Isaiah 44 I think that He says that nothing at all happens without Him. He is behind the weather patterns and everything else. That doesn't make them miraculous. He brings about the rise and fall of nations too but you can always find what they call "proximate causes" for these events as well, ordinary everyday explanations. The difference here is not God's will or activity in any event, which is ALWAYS the case, the difference is whether the event is a violation of natural processes, and except for the gathering of the animals and the closing of the ark there is nothing in the scriptural description of the Flood to suggest that it was miraculous.ABE: IN ANY CASE the effects of such an event should be evident, and they are: strata, fossils.ABE: Oh and I really like this model of the effect of sea transgressions and regressions too because it is the first explanation I've seen of how the sedimentary layers could have formed by the rising and falling of sea water, which is of course the method of the Flood. It needs to be worked out of course, but to say it puts the nail in the coffin of the Flood theory totally misses the point.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : add a couple words in last paragraph

If you didn't know God's communications with Noah, which we only know through the scripture, you would have no reason to think the rain was anything but natural. It is only because scripture takes us behind the scenes of events that we understand His role and His reasons for what He does. This is true of all the natural events that are going on all the time in your neighborhood and mine.

The different times idea is an artifact of the Old Earth model; the Flood happened in about one year about 4300 years ago and maybe some day you'll bring your model into conformity with this truth.Siliclastic sediments would have been scoured off the land mass and redeposited; limestones would have been coughed up by the sea itself. How's that for a start?What's neat about this model of sea transgression/regression is not where the sediments come from but that the sea DOES deposit them in layers. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

And I shall when I've worked it all through. This is still a new idea to me you know. Bedrock I suppose. Scoured off doesn't mean obliterated. See above.